JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Pankaj Kumar. 2. The surviving two appellants out of the original seven appellants named in the First Information Report lodged by the informant, Tula Ram Mahto (P.W.4) are those, who faced trial under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code along with 13 other accused persons for having committed dacoity in the house of Mansu Mahto, father of the informant and having caused his murder. By the impugned judgment dated 30.07.1996 rendered in Sessions Trial No. 82 of 1986/34 of 1995 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda, these two appellants along with five others were convicted for the charge under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the impugned order of sentence dated 02.08.1996. 3. As per the Fardbeyan of the informant, Tula Ram Mahto (P.W.4) at 10.30 p.m. on 6th May, 1980, 30-40 dacoits entered his house. Ram Lal Mahto his brother was sleeping outside, who was caught hold of and beaten and the door of the house was broken by these dacoits. They entered the house and committed loot in the house of the informant. The informant, who was sleeping in a room got himself concealed below the cot in the room. He identified 10 accused persons including these two appellants and also claimed to have identified certain other persons, whose name he did not know. The informant has stated that Shanker Durbey (deceased appellant) was carrying a gun in his hand and his father was shot by the dacoits. His father died subsequently in the hospital. The informant alleged loot of certain household articles and ornaments. 4. Godda P. S. Case No. 4 of 1980 was instituted against 10 named accused persons and after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted against 15 named accused persons in custody and 2 showing absconder under Sections 396/412 of the Indian Penal Code bearing Charge-sheet no. 65 of 1980. Since the appellants and other accused persons denied their involvement on the charge being read over to them and explained in Hindi, trial proceeded. 5. 6 prosecution witnesses P.W. 1, Jhari Mahto, P.W. 2, Ramlal Mahto, P.W.3, Fulchand Mahto, P.W.4, Tula Ram Mahto, informant, P.W.5, Md. Hazarat Ali and P.W.6, Dr. Anirudh Mandal were examined. 65 of 1980. Since the appellants and other accused persons denied their involvement on the charge being read over to them and explained in Hindi, trial proceeded. 5. 6 prosecution witnesses P.W. 1, Jhari Mahto, P.W. 2, Ramlal Mahto, P.W.3, Fulchand Mahto, P.W.4, Tula Ram Mahto, informant, P.W.5, Md. Hazarat Ali and P.W.6, Dr. Anirudh Mandal were examined. Prosecution exhibited certain documentary evidence which are as under: Ext.-1 - F.I.R Ext.-2 -Postmortem report proved by P.W.6 Ext.-3 - Injury report on Manger Mian proved by P.W.6 Ext.-3/1 - Injury report of Gopal Mandal proved by P.W.6 Ext.3/2 -Injury report of Somia Devi proved by P.W.6 All the prosecution exhibits were proved without objection. Under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused persons pleaded their innocence and denied their involvement in the case. Learned Trial Court, however, convicted 6 persons for the charge under Section 396 of the I.P.C and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. 6. Out of 6 convicts, who approached this Court in the present appeal, four died during pendency and present two surviving appellants feeling aggrieved have pressed the instant appeal. 7. On behalf of the appellant, learned counsel Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh submits that it is a case of false implication as the accused persons like these two appellants are known from before to the informant. Their villages are also adjacent, namely, Rajpura is the informant’s village adjacent to the village of the surviving appellants i.e., Tarbara and Gaichan. as is also evident from the statement of P.W.4, informant at para-35. P.W.4 is not a reliable witness. He could not have seen the accused persons like this appellant as he was hiding beneath a cot in a room of width 6’ and 5 ½’ with a door which did not open outside to the courtyard. Paragraph nos. 1, 16 and 18 of his deposition is referred to, where the informant has also stated that there was no light in the room and he could see the dacoits only in their torch light. P.W.2, Ramlal Mahto has, in his deposition, stated that he identified three accused persons during T.I.Parade, who are not the appellants. His statement at paragraph nos. P.W.2, Ramlal Mahto has, in his deposition, stated that he identified three accused persons during T.I.Parade, who are not the appellants. His statement at paragraph nos. 4, 10, 19 and 27 have been referred to in support of the submission that the name of these two appellants and other accused persons were stated to him by the informant, though these accused persons were known to P.W.2 from his childhood. This witness was the first person whom the dacoit confronted as he was sleeping outside the house, but he has not identified the several accused persons like Santlal Yadav, Manohar Yadav, Dhumma, Bihari, Musafir (present appellant), Mangan, Kishori and others, whose names were told by his brother only i.e., P.W.4. Therefore, there is false implication of these accused appellants by the informant. P.W. 1, Jhari Mahto is the person whose house is adjacent to that of the informant, where dacoity was also committed by these accused persons. In para-4, P.W.1 stated that son of Mansu Mahto (deceased) i.e. the informant told him about having identified the dacoits. The deposition of these witness at paragraph nos. 6,8,9 and 12 clearly shows that there was some pre-existing enmity between the informant and the accused persons like the present appellants. P.W.3, namely, Fulchand Mahto son of Darwari Mahto was sleeping in an adjacent house of Ghoghan Mahto and he has only claimed to have identified two dacoits as they were passing through the Gali (passage) out of 30 dacoits, whom he later on identified during T.I.Parade. According to this witness, he was hiding inside the house of Ghoghan Mahto and came to the house of Tula Ram Mahto only after the dacoits fled away. Para-7 of his deposition has also been referred to in support of the submission that this witness has not identified the present two appellants either in the dock or earlier during T.I. Parade or named him as having seen during the occurrence. P.W.5, Md. Hazrat Ali has proved his signature marked X and that of Haradhan Mandal on the seizure-list Ext.-2/1, though he has stated that no articles were seized in his presence. He has also proved his signature on a document marked Y for identification and that of Haradhan Mandal as Ext.- 2/2 and 2/3. 8. P.W.5, Md. Hazrat Ali has proved his signature marked X and that of Haradhan Mandal on the seizure-list Ext.-2/1, though he has stated that no articles were seized in his presence. He has also proved his signature on a document marked Y for identification and that of Haradhan Mandal as Ext.- 2/2 and 2/3. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the statement of P.W.5 at Para-4 to show that there was a pre-existing enmity between Tularam Mahto and accused, Suresh Mandal in relation to some land dispute and that the land of Tularam Mahto and Manshu Mahto and also of the accused Santlal Mahto and Manohar Mahto are in village- Rajpura. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the medical evidence of P.W.6, Dr. Anirudh Mandal, who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Mansu Mahto at 4.30 p.m. on 8th May, 1980 found the following injuries: “1. (i) One surgical wound 3” in length with four stiches on the abdomen 2” left to the umbilicus. (ii) One surgical wound 1” in length with two stitches outer left flank just above the left iliacrest. 2. On dissection extensive haemotoma was found under the subcutaneous tissues on the abdomen. Peritoneal cavity was full of blood. On further dissection one big rest (whole) was found in the greater omentum & the interior surface of the transverse colun. The dimension of the rest was ½” x ¼” on the colun & the greater omentum. 3. The injuries were grievous in nature & were caused by bullet. Age was within 12 hours. The death in my opinion was due to hemorrhage & shock as a result of the injuries mentioned above.” 9. According to the P.W.6, the above injuries were the cause of death. These injuries were caused by bullet and were grievous in nature. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that medical evidence alone is not sufficient to hold the appellants guilty as false implication of the appellants are clearly made out from the evidence of Prosecution Witness nos. 4 and 2, in particular, both of whom are brothers and claimed to be present at the place of occurrence. Thus, the appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charge by giving them the benefit of doubt. The appeal deserves to be allowed. 10. 4 and 2, in particular, both of whom are brothers and claimed to be present at the place of occurrence. Thus, the appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charge by giving them the benefit of doubt. The appeal deserves to be allowed. 10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently supported the findings and relied upon the prosecution evidence on record in support thereof. Learned counsel for the State submits that the appellants may have been known to the informant from before, but commission of dacoity with murder of father of informant in the house of the informant has been proved beyond doubt. The statement of P.W.4 clearly establishes that he had identified the accused persons including these two appellants in the torchlight while hiding underneath a cot in the room. The statement of P.W.2 shows that there were 30 dacoits, who came in the dead of the night and assaulted him and thereafter broke open the door of the house to enter inside. P.W.2 has truthfully stated that he identified 4 out of 30 of these accused persons and name of the other accused persons like these appellants were stated by his brother the informant, who could identify them in the torchlight. Therefore, there is nothing impeachable in his testimony. P.Ws. 2 and 4 both corroborate each other. The nature of injuries found on the dead body of the father of the informant proved by P.W.6, Dr. Anirudh Mandal establishes that it was caused by use of fire arm i.e. bullet injury which resulted in shock and hemorrhage causing his death. P.W.1 is Jhari Mahto in whose house the dacoity was also committed. There is no contradiction or embellishment in the prosecution story which could discredit the testimony of the other prosecution witnesses on the point of identification of the accused persons including these appellants. Enmity cuts both ways. Therefore, the fact that the accused persons and the informant had land in village-Rajpura would also be a reason for commission of the offence on the part of the accused persons. Learned Trial Court has therefore rightly convicted the accused persons, who faced trial along with these two appellants for the charge under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life. Hence, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence does not deserve any interference in appeal. 11. Learned Trial Court has therefore rightly convicted the accused persons, who faced trial along with these two appellants for the charge under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life. Hence, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence does not deserve any interference in appeal. 11. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties, gone through the materials on record including the Fardbeyan, framing of charge, evidence of six prosecution witnesses, four prosecution exhibits, statement of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C and also perused the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. After careful analysis of the evidence on record, we are in a position to observe that the prosecution case leaves serious doubt on the point of identification of the present two appellants in the commission of the offence. No doubt, an offence of dacoity along with murder of the informant’s father has been committed but the manner in which P.W.4 claims to have identified the accused persons renders his testimony suspect. From the evidence of P.W.5, in particular previous enmity between the accused and the informant is apparent. The accused persons and the informant both had lands in village-Rajpura. There was a dispute between the informant Tularam Mahto and accused Suresh Mandal on account of Bataidari relating to a land dispute. Informant’s father had properties in village Charkakol and in Rajpura both, though on the fateful night he was not in the Rajpura house. The fact that these appellants and certain accused persons were known from before to the informant is also evident from the statement of P.W.1. at paragraph-9. P.W.1, Jhari Mahto has categorically stated that it was the son of Mansu Mahto i.e, informant, who told him about the identification of the dacoits. As such, his deposition does not go beyond what P.W.4 has stated. P.W.3, Fulchand Mahto was sleeping in the house of Ghoghan Mahto which is adjacent to the house of Jhari Mahto, whose house is adjacent to that of the informant. He claims to have identified two accused persons while they were passing through the passage out of 30 dacoits, but this identification is in the T.I. Parade which does not relate to these two appellants. He claims to have identified two accused persons while they were passing through the passage out of 30 dacoits, but this identification is in the T.I. Parade which does not relate to these two appellants. At para-3 this witness states that so long the dacoity was going on he was hiding in the house of Ghoghan Mahto and came to the house of Tularam after the dacoits left. At para-7 this witness states that he had not taken his mouth out of the mokha when he was watching the dacoits. In any case this witness does not identify these two appellants. P.W.4, informant, who claims to have identified a number of accused persons, namely, Mushafir Durbey, the present appellant, Mangan Durbey, Shankar Durbey (deceased-appellant), Kishori Sao, Manohar Mahto, appellant no. 2, Sant Lal Mahto, Dhuma Basuki, Bihari Chaure and Suresh Ram states that he identified six other accused persons during T.I. Parade, namely, Sheikh Ibrahim, Bishwanath Musher, Jyotish Rai, Jaldhar Rai and Prasadi Manjhi and one other person, who was not present in the dock. According to this witness, there were five adults in the house and three children when the dacoity took place. His statement at para-1 compared with para-16 gives a clear impression that while the dacoity was going on he hid himself under a cot alone in a room whose door did not open outside. There were no Veranda in his house and after that room there was another room. The room in which he was hiding did not have any light. The occurrence took place on a dark night. At para-18 also, he states that he had hid himself under the cot out of fear in the room where there was no light. He however claims to have seen the dacoits in torch light. He does not say that he identified the accused persons by their voice. When his testimony is read along with the testimony of P.W. 2 his brother, Ram Lal Mahto, we find that he was the person who was first confronted by the dacoits as he was sleeping outside the door. Though, as per his deposition at para-10 and 27, he knew certain accused persons including these two appellants since his childhood, but he does not claim to have identified them at the time of occurrence. Though, as per his deposition at para-10 and 27, he knew certain accused persons including these two appellants since his childhood, but he does not claim to have identified them at the time of occurrence. Rather the name of these accused persons including Santlal Yadav, Dhumma, Bihari, Mangan, Kishori and others were told to him by his brother i.e. the informant. This witness claims to have identified four dacoits, out of whom three were identified during T.I. Parade, namely, Prasadi Manjhi, Bishwanath Mushar and Jaldhar Rai and the other one was not present. It is wholly unlikely that such accused persons including these appellants, who were known to the P.W. 2, Ram Lal Mahto, brother of the informant from before could not be identified by him, though the accused persons were stated to have confronted him first and engaged with him for 7-8 minutes as per his statement at para-19. Name of these accused persons like the appellants coming out of mouth of P.W.4 while recording the Fardbeyan, therefore, appears to be a clear case of false implication. As noticed above, the accused persons like the present appellants were known from before to the informant and there was a case of previous enmity also between them. As such, their false implication cannot be ruled out. The occurrence of dacoity with murder took place on the night of 6.5.1980, but the informant seems to have over jealously implicated persons like these appellants, who were not involved in the occurrence and present at the time of occurrence. The manner in which he claims to have seen the dacoits from beneath the cot in a room where he was alone all along the time the dacoity was committed, read with the testimony of P.W.2 leaves us with no element of doubt that the case of the prosecution suffers from grave doubt as against these two appellants. As such, they are entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside as being wholly unsustainable in law as well as on facts. Appeal is allowed. Appellants, who are on bail, they are discharged from liability of their bail bonds. 12. Let the lower court records be sent down to the concerned Court forthwith with a copy of this judgment. Appeal Allowed.